P.K. Desai, Member (J) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-178/87GC, dated 4-1-1988 passed by the Collector Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, against the Order-in-Original No. 14/87 (DC) of the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay and directing that the respondent shall be granted a licence within one month from the date of receipt of his ibid order.
(2.) One Shri Pravin Achaldas Parekh, the respondent herein, vide his application in GS-6, dated 27-3-1986 applied for grant of a gold dealers licence and deposited the requisite fees for licence of Rs. 100. The matter was investigated by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive), Gold Control, who vide his order dated 5-3-87 rejected the application of the respondent for grant of such a licence on the ground that the respondent had not fulfilled the requirement of Rule 2 (b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, inasmuch as the respondents did not process the requisite experience in dealing in gold or making, manufacturing, preparing, repairing or polishing of ornaments. Excepting non-fulfilment of the provision of Rule 2 (b), the Deputy Collector did not find any other deficiency in the case of the respondent. While allowing the appeal on the factual side observed that the respondent has been holding a valid certificate of goldsmith bearing No. 756/86 and that it also transpired from the records that he had been doing the goldsmith work inasmuch as he had worked as a salesman in the firm of a licence holders, namely M/s. Alankar Jewellers. He also referred to the affidavit duly sworn in by the respondent before the Deputy Collector, to the effect that the respondent was employed in the licensed gold dealers' firm for the last eight years. Referring to the requirements of Rule 2 (b) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules 1969, the Collector (Apppeals) held that the matters mentioned in Rule 2 of the said Rules are not conditions of a mandatory nature governing the grant of a dealers licence and that there was a scope of exercising discretion in that regard.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the said order the Collector (Preventive) has come in appeal before us.;